20
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries] On: 18 November 2014, At: 23:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Literacy Research and Instruction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20 The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences Peggy Daisey a a Eastern Michigan University , Ypsilanti , Michigan , USA Published online: 07 May 2012. To cite this article: Peggy Daisey (2012) The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences, Literacy Research and Instruction, 51:3, 214-232, DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2011.556211 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2011.556211 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

  • Upload
    peggy

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 18 November 2014, At: 23:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

The Promise of Secondary Content AreaLiteracy Field ExperiencesPeggy Daisey aa Eastern Michigan University , Ypsilanti , Michigan , USAPublished online: 07 May 2012.

To cite this article: Peggy Daisey (2012) The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy FieldExperiences, Literacy Research and Instruction, 51:3, 214-232, DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2011.556211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2011.556211

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Literacy Research and Instruction, 51: 214–232, 2012Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388071.2011.556211

The Promise of Secondary Content AreaLiteracy Field Experiences

PEGGY DAISEY

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan

Secondary preservice teachers (N = 67) in a required content area literacy course and 30-hour fieldexperience presented tradebooks, biographies, as well as pre, during, and after reading lessons basedon topics in their content area to middle and high school students. At the end of the semester, theywere asked to complete an anonymous survey. Results revealed that before the semester, preserviceteachers were unlikely to make these presentations in their future instruction. Preservice teachersunderestimated the enthusiasm of the students and their cooperating teachers for all three of thesepresentations. There were positive correlations between preservice teachers’ rating of the students’and cooperating teachers’ enthusiasm and the likelihood that they would repeat these presentationsin their future instruction.

Keywords teacher education, motivation, content area reading, adolescent literacy

Secondary teachers are urged to integrate reading into their instruction and to beenthusiastic literacy role models. The limited amount of time too often offered to studentsin school decreases the opportunity to enhance their reading ability and love of reading.Therefore, teachers are encouraged to expand the limited opportunities that currently existin school for teenagers to nurture their reading lives (Greenleaf, Jimenez, & Roller, 2002;Daisey, 2010). Teachers are the most important element for creating conditions in the class-room environment that promotes student motivation to learn (Graves, 2001). Accordingly,they need to plan activities to develop students’ readiness for learning, acquisition of infor-mation, and internalization of concepts. In order to integrate this method of instructionwhile engaging students, it is recommended that teachers vary organizational settings andinstructional methods, as well as use a variety of instructional resources to help studentsdevelop concepts (Benjamin, 2007). Despite the value of integrating reading into secondarycontent area instruction, this practice remains rare in too many classes today. One rea-son for the absence of welcoming reading into classrooms is because this is not the typeof instruction teachers experienced or how they came to succeed in their subject area asstudents (Kenyon, 1989). Moreover, some teachers do not enjoy reading (Powell-Brown,2003–2004).

Ever since Early’s 1957 rallying cry of “every teacher a teacher of reading,” there hasbeen resistance from some secondary content area teachers to the integration of readinginto their instruction (Ruddell, 2001). This has been due to the misunderstanding that sec-ondary teachers were to replace subject area with reading instruction, a task for whichthey felt little sympathy and had inadequate preparation (Ruddell, 2001). Daniels andZemelman (2004) echoed the sentiment of a stressed teacher.

Address correspondence to Peggy Daisey, PhD, Teacher Education, Eastern Michigan University, Porter313, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. E-mail: [email protected]

214

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 215

Hey, excuse me, but I do have a textbook to get through. I have a curriculum tocover. It is mandated by the district and I can just barely cram it into the schoolyear as it is. My kids have to take a departmental exam and a state assessment.If they don’t do well, both the school and I could be in trouble. And even ifI wanted to, where would I find the time to bring in all these readings andactivities? (p. 13)

Consequently, teachers spend less than 15% of instructional time on building and activat-ing their students’ prior knowledge. They spend only 20% of instructional time providingguidance for students’ learning from text (Benjamin, 2007). Although content area teach-ers are concerned about the time spent teaching reading and reading strategies, contentarea literacy educators have stressed that through the use of strategies time will be savedin the future (Thibodeau, 2008). Perhaps, teachers found that the recommended contentarea reading strategies were of little instructional value, because they were introduced inisolation (Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner, 1985).

An irony and unwitting result of the lack of reading integration though is that fewteenagers are given evidence that their teachers liked to read (Rieck, 1977; Daisey,2009). Consequently, high school teachers have been cited (by secondary preserviceteachers) as the most negative influence on them as readers (Daisey 2009; Rasinski,1992). Furthermore, when 82 secondary preservice teachers were asked to draw their pastfavorite reading experience, only 17.1% cited a school reading assignment, and no teach-ers appeared in their drawings (Daisey, 2010). It is no surprise given this lack of cultureof reading in secondary classrooms that one of the top challenges reported by high schoolteachers was motivating their students to achieve literacy in their subject area (Campbelland Kmiecik, 2004).

Resistance to the integration of reading begins before teachers set foot in their class-rooms. It is endemic to secondary preservice content area literacy courses. Nourie andLenski (1998) found that a content area reading course did little, if anything, to enhancesecondary preservice teachers’ attitudes toward reading or to increase their personal read-ing. Moreover, content area method professors of secondary preservice teachers were ableto understand this resistance to a content area literacy course (Daisey & Shroyer, 1993).Content area literacy educators have sat up nights thinking of ways to persuade preserviceteachers of the value of reading in their instruction while reminding preservice teachersof their own past love of reading (Daisey, 2010). We have poured our hearts out, yet theresults of a study by Daisey (2009) suggested that a content area literacy course reduced theresistance to the inclusion of reading in instruction, but did not eliminate the gap betweenpreservice teachers who reported high reading enjoyment throughout their lives, versusthose with low reading enjoyment. For example, preservice teachers with high readingenjoyment believed that they would use what they had learned in the content area liter-acy course. Their pre- and postsemester means on a 10-point scale, were 8.09 versus 8.83,respectively. In contrast, the pre and post semester means for preservice teachers with lowreading enjoyment were 6.83 versus 7.97, respectively. It is clear, that secondary preserviceteachers need more concrete evidence to persuade them to value and integrate reading intotheir future instruction.

Purpose

Content area knowledge and literacy development may go hand in hand (McConachieet al., 2006). However, in order for this to occur, secondary preservice teachers need to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

216 P. Daisey

motivated by positive reading experiences in their content area literacy course so they maypass this attitude onto their future students (Nourie & Lenski, 1998). Teaching decisionsare framed within the context of a teacher’s life history (Carter, 1993). Teachers’ personalexperiences with reading form an important basis for their attitudes toward infusing readingactivities into their instruction (Bean, 1994). This is because “teachers don’t just appear outof thin air. They are products-as well as active agents-of the worlds from which they came”(Greenleaf et al., 2002, p. 487). For secondary preservice teachers who have had negativepast experiences, research has revealed that their attitudes toward reading were malleable(Cardarelli, 1992). Thus, it is possible for teacher education classes and field experiencesto overshadow the influence of preservice teachers’ previous negative literacy experiences(Roe & Vukelich, 1998). Secondary preservice teachers need to have the opportunity toexpand the limited opportunities that currently exist in school for teenagers to nurture theirreading lives. It is proposed here that preservice teachers may promote reading by pre-senting tradebooks, biographies, as well as pre, during, and after reading lessons basedon topics in their content area to middle and high school students. In this way, preserviceteachers may experience first hand the reaction of teenage students to their instruction andhave evidence to decide for themselves the value of the integration of reading into theirfuture instruction. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine how enthusias-tic preservice teachers believed their field experience students and cooperating teacherswere for their tradebook, biography, as well as their pre, during, and after reading lessonpresentations. Preservice teachers also were asked to rate how this enthusiasm influencedtheir thinking about the integration of reading into their future instruction. It is importantto note that there was only a post survey. At the end of the semester, preservice teacherswere asked to think back and predict what they believed the students’ and their cooperat-ing teachers’ enthusiasm was for each presentation before it was given. Also, on this postsemester survey, they rated what they believed the students’ and teachers’ enthusiasm wasafter each of these three presentations.

Theoretical Frameworks

From a sociocognitive stance (Vygotsky, 1978), learning is affected by values, attitudes,and experiences. This is to say, past experiences influence preservice teachers who havehad many years experience in educational institutions before they arrive in teacher educa-tion courses (Cole & Knowles, 1993). If preservice teachers have not experienced readingintegrated into their secondary instruction and do not enjoy reading themselves, it is goingto require experiences to counter and necessitate a change of schemas. This experienceis essential since ultimately, a teacher’s instructional decisions are swayed by his or herpositive or negative attitudes and experiences.

According to constructivist theory, knowledge is constructed from experience throughreflection (Merrill, 1992). This is how field experiences hold promise. During this time,preservice teachers are offered valuable insights about the integration of reading into theirfuture instruction. This is critical because during this time, they may reflect upon theirreading past while walking through a variety of instructional activities that include reading(Colton & Sparks-Langer, 1993; Roe, Smith, & Ross, 2010). As a result, this experiencewill influence the decisions that secondary preservice teachers make about their futurereading pedagogy.

Another key issue is the importance of student motivation to learning. Motivationneeds to be central in content area literacy instruction. Researchers have found that pos-itive literacy motivation promotes reading achievement, cognitive processing, concept

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 217

comprehension, and perseverance (i.e., see Gambrell, 2002). Educators have found thatteenagers need to understand why they should invest their time and energy to increasetheir reading ability (Atwell, 2007). When adolescents read material that is important tothem, they understand why they might wish to use and master reading strategies and skills(Greenleaf et al., 2002). Secondary teachers face overwhelming curriculum demands, yetthere is a need for space in secondary schools for the enjoyment of reading and the curricu-lum to coexist (Sumara, 1996; Daisey, 2010). This merger would serve to promote studentinterest, motivation, and achievement. This is because students who spend more time read-ing are better readers (Strommen & Mates, 2004). Intrinsic motivation is connected toreading achievement (Guthrie et al., 2004), yet student boredom is given minimal attentionby teachers (Fried, 2001). It is important for teachers to consider a student’s enthusiasm,since students must be willing to make a connection to make meaning (Guthrie, 2008).A teacher’s mindfulness of students’ reading interest is critical since teenagers who con-tinually are offered the right book at the right time, typically grow up to be adults whoread (Atwell, 2007; Ivey, 2002). Preservice teachers need to know and experience that theymay build student interest in reading through classroom libraries (Dahbany & McFadden,2009), offering students choice of reading materials (Mizelle, 1997), and reading aloud totheir students (Daisey, 1993; Zehr, 2010). Through the combination of a content area lit-eracy course and connected field experience, secondary preservice teachers may becomeaware of the value of integrating reading into their instruction and reflect on the results oncethey have tried their hand at it in a classroom filled with teenagers. In the next paragraphs,the rationale for asking secondary preservice teachers to present tradebooks, biographies,as well as pre, during, and after reading lessons is explained.

Why Tradebooks?

Instructional use of tradebooks promotes construction of knowledge, vicarious experi-ences, positive attitudes, and higher levels of literacy (Daisey, 1994a, 1994b). This isbecause literacy is enhanced when instruction is empowering, useful, accessible, relevant,whole and interesting to a student (Goodman, 1986). Teaching with tradebooks is differentfrom teaching with textbooks (Peterson & Eeds, 1990). Since the text is seen as a spring-board for generating new meaning (Borasi & Siegel, 1990). This is essential because whenstudents perceive content to be learned as something that is personal and meaningful, theyput much more energy (both cognitive and emotional) into the experience (Ogle, 1989).Therefore, if educators want students to read, we must give them material worth reading(Carter & Mayer, 1988). A reading passage as small as a paragraph read aloud has thepower to help build community, as well as promote focus, motivation, and context forlearning (Daisey, 1993; Zehr, 2010).

Secondary educators have experienced the power of the use of tradebooks and readingaloud to students. For example, Atwell (1987) explained that her students motivated herto fill her classroom with books and book talks. She observed, “They showed me that ifI gave them the chance they would devour books. . . . My students taught me that theyloved to read. They showed me that in-school reading could actually do something forthem” (p. 20). Easley (2004), a high school vocational education teacher, observed howshe occasionally runs into some of her former students in bookstores. They tell her thatthey were just browsing, noticing the books that she had read aloud to them in class. Shenoted, “Every once in a while, as a teacher, if you are really lucky you get a brief glimpseat the difference you have made in a student’s life” (p. 36). She felt that reading aloud toher students for a few minutes daily was one of the most powerful practices as a teacher.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

218 P. Daisey

Through reading aloud, she believed that her students came to see her as a reader. Sheshared her reading with her students, who in turn wanted to read more.

Due to the wide variety of tradebooks, they fit well into any part of a lesson (Daisey,1996). For example, by reading aloud a short passage of a tradebook at the beginning of alesson, students may be engaged while their prior knowledge about the topic is activated.By making tradebooks available, teachers may help students explore concepts during alesson. Tradebooks are useful to explain concepts in ways that are accessible to a broaderrange of students. Teachers may then elaborate upon a lesson’s concepts by expanding andapplying the concepts to a variety of disciplines through the use of tradebooks. Tradebooksare also valuable to students when their content knowledge is assessed through writing andprojects.

Why Biography Projects?

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests the importance of role models as anavenue for learning new attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, biographies are valuable insecondary content area instruction. Teachers have been called on to consider the perspec-tive of their instruction and to give their students the opportunity to consider the roles,views, and interaction of diverse groups of people (Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994).Educators have been urged to take care not to reinforce stereotypes. This is because stu-dents may internalize these ideas as true, thus lowering their self-esteem, perseverance, andachievement (Sadker, Sadker, & Zittleman, 2009).

Presentation of biographies gives future teachers the opportunity to empower theirstudents to question social constructs that create barriers to interest and achievement.Stone (1996), a psychiatrist, laments the “destorification” of our lives (p. 9), since literatebehaviors can lead to the creation of new worlds of possibilities (Heath, 1980). Throughbiographies students may realize that “what seemed simply the way things are, could actu-ally be a social construct, advantageous to some people and detrimental to others, andthat these constructs could be criticized and changed” (Taylor, 1996, p. 126). Biographieshelp students understand that things can be other than they are, thus providing them withexpanded possibilities and the ability to imagine new stories and endings for themselves.A biography “can open unexpected doors or permit unanticipated guests to enter our lives”(National Storytelling Association, 1994, p. 55). During a story, students are engaged inthe tales of others experiencing dilemmas similar to theirs, which can cause them to ask,“What would I do if . . .?” While students reflect “and this question . . . hangs in the air,who [they] are is up for grabs” (Taylor, 1996, p. 42). This is the moment when studentsbegin “developing the ability to choose rather than simply to inherit a story” (Taylor, 1996,p. 137). Moreover, teachers are reminded that no research has ever shown that high stan-dards and expectations of students have caused an increase in the high school dropout rate(Matthews, 1988). Hence, through the inclusion of biographies teachers may reexaminetheir understanding and presentation of the content embedded within the story, while offer-ing all students fresh proof that the powers of the mind are not connected to one’s genderor the color of one’s skin (Daisey, 1996/1997).

Why Pre, During, and After Reading Lessons?

A goal of content area instruction is for students to build meaningful conceptual under-standings in an academic field. Conceptual learning occurs when a student constructsknowledge through a series of interactions with the content. Learning takes place when

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 219

new information is integrated with old information; so there is a conscious awareness ofwhat is being learned, when it will be useful, and how to use it effectively (Roehler &Duffy, 1989). To begin this instructional process, content area teachers need to determinethe learning outcome. Then they are encouraged to provide students with numerous oppor-tunities to engage with the concepts. To accomplish this, teachers are urged to use variousforms of adjunct questioning techniques, advanced organizers, as well as various forms andlevels of activities to promote content learning and retention (Herber, 1978; Ogle, 1986).

The Study

Qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the design of this quasi-experimentalstudy, which took place at a midwest university that educates many educational personnel.

The research questions that guided this study were the following:

1. Before the content area literacy course, how likely would it have been for preserviceteachers to present tradebooks, biographies, as well as pre, during, and after readinglessons to their future students?

2. How did preservice teachers’ pre and post predictions of their field experience students’enthusiasm compare for their tradebook, biography, as well as their pre, during, andafter reading lesson presentations?

3. How did preservice teachers’ pre and post predictions of their cooperating teachers’enthusiasm compare for their tradebook, biography, as well as their pre, during, andafter reading lesson presentations?

4. What were the correlations between preservice teachers’ predictions of their field expe-rience students’ and cooperating teachers’ enthusiasm the tradebook, biography, aswell as pre, during, and after reading lesson presentations, and preservice teachers’predictions of the likelihood that they would repeat such presentations in the future?

Participants

Participants in this study were 67 secondary preservice teachers in a required secondarycontent area literacy course and 30-hour field experience. There were 37 (55.22%) femalesand 30 (44.78%) males. Of the total 67, 63 (94.03%) were Caucasian, two (2.98%) wereAsian, and two (2.98%) were African Americans. Preservice teachers majored in a widevariety of subject areas: 17 social studies (25.37%), 16 mathematics (23.88%), 11 English(16.42%), four Spanish (7.46%), four integrated science (5.90%), three art (4.48%), twobusiness/marketing (2.98%), two communication arts (2.98%), two Chinese (2.98%), onechemistry (1.49%), one computer science (1.49%), one automobile technology (1.49%),one biology (1.49%), and one Japanese (1.49%). Another 30 preservice teachers partici-pated who majored in special education, physical education, or music who were in the sec-ondary content area literacy course, but were not in the field experience with their 67 class-mates. This was because they had field experiences within their content area departments.

Content Area Literacy Course

During the secondary content area literacy course, preservice teachers were encouraged toexpand, rethink, experience, value, and ultimately model instruction that included reading.They were immersed in many reading opportunities using a wide variety of subject areareading materials such as tradebooks, biographies, and online materials.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

220 P. Daisey

Tradebook Project. During the course, preservice teachers were required to present a3-minute tradebook project at the beginning of the class session to their classmates (seeDaisey, 1993, 1994a, 1994b). (Typically there were one or two presentations per classperiod.) They were to think of a lesson that they would teach in their subject area, finda connecting benchmark, choose a tradebook relating to the topic, and read a short moti-vational passage to the class. Preservice teachers were asked to bring in five additionalpieces of reading material (tradebooks, online material, magazine or newspaper articles)that closely related in topic to the reading aloud passage. They set the reading materialsup along the edge of the white board at the front of the room. They read a short passageand then told the class the titles of the reading material and said something positive abouteach. Finally, they made a project that related to the reading to show the class. For exam-ple, preservice teachers could get dressed up as a character, write a poem, make a timelineor poster, cook something, make a video, and so on. They left their reading material andproject at the front of the room during the class period for their classmates to look at afterclass. Preservice teachers in the field experience knew that they could present the sametradebook project in both the content area literacy class and in their field experience class.They understood that their presentation in their field experience class had to fit into thetopic of the day’s lesson; so it was necessary to talk to their cooperating teacher aboutthe topic. Preservice teachers were told that the purpose of the tradebook project was tomotivate students to want to know more. They were asked to leave their reading materialand project at the front of the room during the lesson. It was suggested to them that if anystudent came up after class and looked at the reading material or project, that the preserviceteacher had succeeded in motivating the student. (One popular project was to make enoughbookmarks to pass out to each student in the cooperating teacher’s class.)

Biography Project. Preservice teachers were asked to choose a biography of a woman,minority, or white male in a nontraditional role or who took nontraditional actions in theirsubject area, find a connecting benchmark, make a transparency of a photograph of theperson, read a short passage to the class, and present a project based on the biography (seeDaisey, 1996/1997, 1997, Daisey & Jose-Kampfner, 2002). In the content area literacycourse, all biography presentations were made on the same day. Preservice teachers sat ina circle at their tables. Their transparencies were collected in order, and each was put on theover-head projector in order as preservice teachers made their 3-minute presentations sit-ting at their place. At the end of all the presentations, preservice teachers put their projectsat their place and everyone walked around and looked at each other’s projects. Preserviceteachers were encouraged to find a reading passage that either had a human interest ele-ment in it, that teenagers could relate to, or a passage that connected the person’s work tothe topic about to be studied in class. As with the tradebook project, preservice teacherscould present the same biography in the content area literacy course as they did in theirfield experience class.

Pre, During, and After Reading Lesson. During the content area literacy course, preserviceteachers were walked through a wide variety of pre, during, and after reading activities.They were asked to make pre, during, and after reading activities as part of their jour-nals. Preservice teachers were asked to write a lesson plan based on a benchmark in theirsubject area. They presented a 15-minute snapshot of the lesson to the class, by noting thebenchmark, describing the students for whom the lesson was intended, showing the readingmaterial, as well as preparing their pre, during, and after reading activities. Given the timeconstraint, they were asked to select one of their three activities and walk their classmates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 221

through the activity, as if they were the teacher and their classmates were their students.The topic for the content area literacy course lesson and field experience lesson could bethe same.

Field Experience

Preservice teachers spent 30 hours in a near-by middle or high school class in their subjectarea. The author placed and supervised them (as well as taught the content area literacycourse on campus). The author went out to the school to visit with the teachers individuallybefore or at the beginning of the semester to introduce herself, see the classroom, go overthe assignments briefly, and ask the cooperating teacher for suggestions, questions, andconcerns. Throughout the semester, the author kept in contact with the cooperating teacherthrough e-mails. Preservice teachers were asked to mentor informally a student or smallgroup of students in their cooperating teacher’s class, throughout the semester by bringingin and sharing reading material based on the topic the class was studying (and their pleasurereading material). At the beginning of two different class periods, they presented their 3-minute tradebook project and their 3-minute biography project. At the end of the semester,each preservice teacher presented a 45–50-minute pre, during, and after reading lessonbased on the topic to be studied in the field experience class that day. The cooperatingteacher was asked to be present in the classroom for all three presentations, in order to offerverbal feedback. The author went out to the classroom to observe the preservice teachers’pre, during, and after reading lesson presentations. The preservice teachers uploaded theirprojects in livetext and also e-mailed the author their thoughts about the students’ andteacher’s reactions, as well as their own feelings about their presentation.

Data Collection and Analysis

At the end of the semester, after preservice teachers in the field experience had completedtheir tradebook, biography, as well as pre, during, and after reading lesson presentations,they were asked to complete an anonymous survey. Preservice teachers were asked to com-plete the survey at the end of the semester because at the beginning of the semester theydid not know what a tradebook or a pre, during, and after reading lesson were. They alsohad not met their cooperating teacher or the students in their field experience. Becausepreservice teachers scheduled their field experience hours with their cooperating teachers,they presented their tradebook, biography, as well as their pre, during, and after reading les-son at different times. Preservice teachers presented their tradebook projects spread widelythroughout the semester to suit the needs of their cooperating teacher. This was also truefor the biography presentation, as well as the pre, during, and after reading lesson presenta-tion. Some preservice teachers knew early on their tradebook and biography topics, othersdid not know until late in the semester, based on their teacher’s curriculum and wishes,and/or the preservice teacher’s schedule. Because I had 67 preservice teachers spread outover a number of school districts, it took close to 2 months of time to observe all of theirlessons. Some of the cooperating teachers did not know what they were going to be teach-ing so far in advance. I could have given the preservice teachers the surveys to carry aroundwith them and asked them to make their pre-predictions before each of their three presen-tations. However, there was no guarantee that they would have remembered to do so giveneverything these preservice teachers were trying to juggle in their lives, plus the additionalnervousness of a presentation. Therefore, given these constraints, I felt more confident thatI had all preservice teachers’ answers at one given point (even if it were at the end of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

222 P. Daisey

semester), rather than not knowing when they had made their pre-predictions. Therefore,they were all asked at the same time, at the end of the semester, to think back and decidewhat their pre-predictions were before their presentations, as well as rate the enthusiasmof their cooperating teacher and field experience students after their presentations.

The survey’s questions included Likert-like and open-ended questions regardingpreservice teachers’ beliefs about the students’ and cooperating teacher’s enthusiasmbefore and after the three presentations. In addition, there were questions about whetherthe preservice teacher had considered making such presentations before enrolling in thecontent area literacy course. One question asked whether the cooperating teacher had beenseen making similar presentations. Other questions asked the likelihood that the preserviceteacher would continue to make similar presentations in their future instruction given thestudents’ reactions.

The survey Likert-like responses were analyzed using paired t-tests and Spearman cor-relations. Quotes from preservice teachers were selected to illustrate categories and themes.The survey open-ended questions were analyzed by reading and rereading responses,grouping similar words and ideas to discover categories and themes using constant compar-ison analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). Three categories had fine lines of distinction. Forexample, the category “suggestions” were ideas intended for the content area professor inorder to make the field experience assignment a better fit for the reality of the classroom.An example was not to require presenting all the tradebooks at once, but one at a timeover a period of time. On the other hand, another category “doubts about how or when”to integrate tradebooks, biographies, or pre, during, and after reading lessons into futureinstruction, suggested preservice teachers’ confusion about concepts or teaching strategies.For example, “access to tradebooks works just as well as presenting them,” “[tradebookpresentations are] hard to fit into the classroom needs . . . when [students] need to catchup or meet the goal[s] of the class,” and “students were confused when the lesson wasbroken into 3 parts.” These comments indicated the need for a clearer explanation in thecontent area literacy course in order to convince preservice teachers of the rationale for thestrategy. Another category that emerged was “as a teacher I need to.” These were ideas thatoccurred to preservice teachers through the experience of their presentations with teenagestudents, such as the need to find more creative or interesting tradebooks.

Results

Before the secondary content area literacy course began, preservice teachers indicated thatthey were unlikely to present tradebooks, biographies, or pre, during, and after readinglessons to their students (see Table 1). Of these three presentations, biographies were themost likely to be presented. Preservice teachers reported that they rarely saw their cooperat-ing teachers present tradebooks, biographies, or pre, during, and after reading lessons (seeTable 1). Preservice teachers did not think that students in their field experience placementswould be enthusiastic about their tradebook, biography, or pre, during, and after readinglesson presentation before their presentation. However, in all three cases, preservice teach-ers believed that students were more enthusiastic than expected (see Table 2). Out of a totalof 201 comments (67 participants × 3 presentation ratings), only 13 (6.47%) were ratedbetween 1 and 5. In addition, cooperating teachers were perceived by preservice teachersto be more enthusiastic about all three presentations than predicted (see Table 3). Therewas also a statistically significant difference between whether preservice teachers plannedto make these three types of presentations before the secondary content area literacy course

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 223

Table 1Means for Survey Responses

Tradebook BiographyPre, during, after

reading lesson

1. Before this semester, how likely would ithave been for you to make this type ofpresentation to your future students onceyou were a teacher?

2.87 4.54 4.04

2. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think the students inyour field experience class would be aboutyour presentation?

4.31 4.37 5.64

3. How enthusiastic were the students aboutyour presentation when you did present it tothe class?

6.69 6.44 6.82

4. How enthusiastic was your cooperatingteacher about your presentation before youpresented it?

5.78 6.24 7.25

5. How enthusiastic was your cooperatingteacher about your presentation after youpresented?

7.49 7.55 8.15

6. Have you seen your cooperating teachermake such a presentation to students?

3.12 2.70 3.04

7. Given the reaction of the students to yourpresentation, how likely are you to repeatsuch a presentation when you are a teacher?

8.16 8.30 8.82

Table 2t-Test Results for Predicted Enthusiasm of Students in Field Experience

Before and After Presentations

Tradebook BiographyPre, during, after

reading lesson

1. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think the students inyour field experience class would be aboutyour presentation? (tradebook)

−8.67<0.0001

2. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think the students inyour field experience class would be aboutyour presentation? (biography)

−7.09<0.0001

3. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think the students inyour field experience class would be aboutyour presentation? (pre, during, and afterreading lesson)

−4.45<0.0001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

224 P. Daisey

Table 3t-Test Results for Predicted Enthusiasm of Cooperating Teachers in Field Experience

Before and After Presentations

Tradebook BiographyPre, during, after

reading lesson

1. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think your cooperatingteacher would be about your presentation?(tradebook)

−8.33<0.0001

2. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think your cooperatingteacher would be about your presentation?(biography)

−6.67<0.0001

3. Before you made this presentation, howenthusiastic did you think your cooperatingteacher would be about your presentation?(pre, during, and after reading lesson)

−4.54<0.0001

Table 4t-Test Results for Likelihood of Repeating Presentation as a Future Teacher Given

the Reaction of Students in Field Experience

Tradebook BiographyPre, during, after

reading lesson

1. Before this semester, how likely would ithave been for you to make this type ofpresentation to your future students onceyou were a teacher? (tradebook)

−15.48<0.0001

2. Before this semester, how likely would ithave been for you to make this type ofpresentation to your students once you werea teacher? (biography)

−11.30<0.0001

3. Before this semester, how likely would ithave been for you to make this type ofpresentation to your students once you werea teacher? (pre, during, & after readinglesson)

−12.54<0.0001

began and the likelihood they would continue these presentations in the future based on thepreservice teachers’ perceived reaction of students (see Table 4).

For both the tradebook and biography presentations, there were positive correlationsbetween preservice teachers’ perceptions of students’ enthusiasm before the presentationand preservice teachers, predictions that they would make future tradebook and biogra-phy presentations (see Table 5). There were statistically significant correlations betweenpreservice teachers’ perceptions of students’ reactions to the tradebook, biography, as wellas pre, during, and after reading lesson presentations, and preservice teachers’ predictions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 225

Table 5Correlations

r p

1. Predicted student enthusiasm before tradebook presentationand likelihood of repeating tradebook presentations in futureteaching.

0.39 .0012

2. Student enthusiasm after tradebook presentation andlikelihood of repeating tradebook presentations in futureteaching.

0.36 .0027

3. Predicted cooperating teacher enthusiasm before tradebookpresentation and likelihood of repeating tradebookpresentations in future teaching.

0.24 .0524

4. Cooperating teacher enthusiasm after tradebook presentationand likelihood of repeating tradebook presentations in futureteaching.

0.40 .0008

5. Predicted student enthusiasm before biography presentationand likelihood of repeating biography presentations in futureteaching.

0.24 .0544

6. Student enthusiasm after biography presentation andlikelihood of repeating biography presentations in futureteaching.

0.52 <.0001

7. Student enthusiasm for pre, during, & after reading lesson andlikelihood of repeating this type of lesson in future teaching.

0.43 .0003

8. Cooperating teacher enthusiasm for pre, during, and afterreading lesson and likelihood of repeating this type of lessonin future teaching.

0.33 .0063

that they would continue to make these presentations when they were teachers (seeTable 5). Preservice teachers’ predictions about whether they were likely to present futuretradebook projects was positively correlated to preservice teachers’ perception of theircooperating teacher’s enthusiasm before and after the presentation (see Table 5). Therewas a positive correlation between preservice teachers’ perceptions of their cooperatingteachers’ enthusiasm for the pre, during, and after reading lesson (both before and after thepresentation) and preservice teachers’ prediction for presenting this type of lesson in theirfuture teaching (see Table 5).

Preservice teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions explained their rating ofthe likelihood for continuing to present tradebook, biography, as well as pre, during, andafter reading lessons in the future. (In some cases, preservice teachers suggested more thanone category in their response which is why the totals do not add up to 100%.)

Tradebook Presentations. Seven categories of explanations for why preservice teacherswere likely (or unlikely) to continue tradebook presentations were suggested in theiranswers: students were engaged, students learned, as a teacher I need to, students enjoyed,students were not interested, doubts about when and how to integrate tradebooks intoinstruction, and suggestions for adaptations (see Table 6).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

226 P. Daisey

Table 6Reasons for Ratings of Likelihood to Continue Presentations as a Teacher

Tradebook BiographyPre, during, after

reading lesson

Students were engaged 44 (65.67%) 43 (64.18%) 30 (44.78%)Students were learning 14 (20.90%) 20 (29.85%) 23 (34.33%)As a teacher I need to . . . 13 (19.40%) 5 (7.46%) 5 (7.46%)Students enjoyed presentation 11 (16.42%) 5 (7.46%) 18 (26.86%)Students were not interested 9 (13.43%) 6 (8.95%) 1 (1.49%)I have doubts about how/when 7 (10.45%) 2 (2.98%) 6 (8.95%)Suggestions for adaptations 5 (7.46%) 5 (7.46%) 0Students were inspired 0 8 (11.94%) 0It was a change of pace 0 0 8 (11.94%)

Secondary preservice teachers often remarked that they were impressed with students’engagement. For example one (whose rating was “10”) noted, “I was surprised by thequestions after I presented. I was also quite happy because the students came up to read thebooks for their silent reading time. They were genuinely interested.” A second preserviceteacher (whose rating was an “8”) explained how students became engaged. “Some ofthe students were not engaged over some of my books but as soon as I connected them tosomething that they heard of/enjoyed I got them hooked.” Preservice teachers believed thatstudents learned through the tradebook presentation. For instance one (whose rating was a“10”) wrote, “Tradebooks seem to be an untapped resource. It was new to the students inthe classroom. I believe this is the answer to improving literacy.”

Preservice teachers reflected upon what they needed to do in their future instruction asthey presented their tradebooks. For example, one (whose rating was a “10”) felt, “I wouldtry to find more fun/creative books than those I used. Tradebooks make sense in a class-room and I have many on writing in my own library.” One preservice teacher (whose ratingwas a “4”) was willing to give tradebook presentations another chance and explained, “Thestudents weren’t all that interested in it, but now I’m somewhat determined to get thestudents interested in it.”

Preservice teachers were encouraged by the response of students. For instance one(with a “10” rating) reported, “My students really liked my presentation and enjoyedreceiving the bookmarks, which made me feel good and I will definitely do it again.”In contrast, other preservice teachers were disappointed by the reaction of students to theirtradebook presentations. One (with a “2” rating) predicted, “I know that other students infuture classes of mine might take more from the tradebook project, but the 100% lack ofinterest in what I was saying at [my field placement] kind of killed it for me.”

Some preservice teachers had doubts about how or when to integrate tradebook pre-sentations into their instruction. For example one (with a “7” rating) observed, “I found ithard to fit into the classroom needs. I really wanted to go outside the box but found it hardwhen they need to catch up or meet the goal lines of the class.” Another preservice teacher(with a “4” rating) did not wish to make presentations and decided, “It really is a matter ofperception. I just would rather have the tradebooks accessible to students.” In one case, itwas clear that the rationale for integrating tradebooks into instruction was not clear, sinceone preservice teacher (with a “1” rating) felt, “There was no point to it.” A few preserviceteachers offered suggestions to the content area literacy professor about the assignment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 227

For instance, one (with a “9” rating) wrote, “Maybe not in the same format, i.e., all booksat once, but I would like to read a passage from a chosen book maybe weekly to my classto give them options.”

Biography Presentations. Preservice teachers’ answers suggested eight categories ofexplanations for why they were likely (or unlikely) to continue biography presentations:students were engaged, students learned, students were inspired, students were not inter-ested, as a teacher I need to, students enjoyed, suggestions for adaptations, doubts abouthow and when to integrate biographies into instruction (see Table 6).

Many preservice teachers were impressed that students were engaged with their biog-raphy presentations. For example one (with a “10” rating) noted, “The students loved thebio project. They had so much to say and I loved all the participation in the classroom.”Preservice teachers could see the value of including biographies into their instruction topromote learning. For instance an art preservice teacher (with a “9” rating) explained,“The idea of introducing an artist into your classroom everyday is really interesting to me.It seems like a great way to introduce artists and not take up a whole lesson for art history.”

Preservice teachers thought that biographies could inspire students to persevere in theirstudies. For example a mathematics preservice teacher (with a “10” rating) felt, “I think ithelps students to see mathematicians as real people because it makes the concepts come tolife. I think it also helps them to see the failures of mathematicians along their journeys tosuccess as well.”

Some preservice teachers were discouraged by the response of students. For instanceone (with a “4” rating) reported, “The students didn’t seem to have fun with it. It landeddead in the water.” Another preservice teacher (with a “5” rating) lamented, “My studentscould have cared less.” In contrast, other preservice teachers were pleased that their stu-dents enjoyed their biography presentations. One (with a “10” rating) noted, “Studentsreally liked my project and what I read to them.”

Several preservice teachers reflected about what they needed to do in their futureinstruction when presenting biographies. One (with a “7” rating) recognized that it wouldtake time and effort on a teacher’s part and wrote, “I want to [include biographies], butI hope to come across people to present.” Preservice teachers offered suggestions to thecontent area literacy professor about how to make the biography presentation assignmenta better fit for the reality of the classroom. For instance one (with a “7” rating) recom-mended, “I think more explanation would need to be given to the students to help themunderstand why it is relevant.” Another preservice teacher (with a “3” rating) decided, “Imight have the students do something on famous people in that subject, but not exactly thesame way.”

Pre, During, and After Reading Lesson Presentations. Preservice teachers’ answers sug-gested eight categories of explanations why they were likely (or unlikely) to continue pre,during, and after reading lesson presentations: students were engaged, students learned,students enjoyed, doubts about when and how to integrate into instruction, students appre-ciated the change of pace, suggestions for adaptations, as a teacher I need to, and studentswere not interested (see Table 6).

Preservice teachers reported their surprise that students were engaged during their les-son presentation. For instance one (with a “10” rating) wrote, “The students that I didmy lesson for are not usually voluntary participants in class. However, they ALL partici-pated, used different levels of thinking, and created a poem which they seemed proud of.I was really pleased with the way it went.” Another preservice teacher (with a “9” rating)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

228 P. Daisey

explained why students were engaged. “I like the pre, during, and after reading lesson andI can see myself doing it again as a teacher. It works well because you have a pre readingactivity that creates interest and motivation then the rest of the lesson goes smoothly.”

Preservice teachers found that students learned during the lesson. For example one(with a “8” rating) noted, “I saw that the students did learn something from the activity.I was a little surprised by it. So I think I would use this especially introducing a les-son.” Preservice teachers thought that students enjoyed the lesson because it promotedownership, creativity, or thinking. One (with a “9” rating) wrote, “They enjoyed the dis-cussions and the 3-level guide helped them find the information in the reading. I like howit gave them a sense of ownership.” Two other preservice teachers (both with “10” rat-ings) recalled, “I really liked the idea of the students using poetry to summarize what theylearned. It allows for the students to be relaxed and creative.” “The students really enjoyedthe activities and we had really good and thoughtful discussions. Well worth it and funto do.” Preservice teachers noted that the students appreciated the change of pace that thepre, during, and after reading lesson afforded them. One (with a “10” rating) reported, “Thestudents seemed to like the change of pace. Some even thanked me for teaching them.”

Other comments by preservice teachers suggested doubts about how and when to inte-grate pre, during, and after reading lessons into their instruction that suggested a morethorough demonstration in the content area course was necessary. For instance a preserviceteacher (with a “1” rating) complained, “The students got confused because I broke thelesson into 3 parts.” Preservice teachers reflected upon what they needed to do as futureteachers when presenting their lessons. For instance one (with a “10” rating) believed that“Even though it was a little rough, I think regular implementation of these activities wouldbe a huge benefit.” One preservice teacher (with a “1” rating) was discouraged that stu-dents were not interested in the lesson presentation and felt that, “Students would have tohave an interest in the subject to inspire a better [rating].”

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine how enthusiastic preservice teachers believedtheir field experience students and cooperating teachers were for their tradebook, biogra-phy, as well as their pre, during, and after reading lesson presentations. Preservice teachersalso were asked to rate how this enthusiasm influenced their thinking about the integrationof reading into their future instruction. It is important to note that there was only a post sur-vey. At the end of the semester, preservice teachers were asked to think back and predictwhat they believed the students’ and their cooperating teachers’ enthusiasm was for eachpresentation before it was given. Also, on this post semester survey, they rated what theybelieved the students’ and teachers’ enthusiasm was after each of these three presentations.

Through a field experience, secondary preservice teachers had an opportunity to be aliteracy role model. As recommended by Greenleaf and colleagues (2002), they expandedthe limited opportunities that currently exist in school for teenagers to nurture their readinglives. Moreover, as Sumara (1996) urged, they opened a space in secondary schools for theenjoyment of reading and the curriculum to coexist. This study provided evidence thatcontent area knowledge and literacy development can go hand in hand as McConachieet al. (2006) stressed is essential. Through a field experience, secondary preservice teachershad an opportunity to develop students’ readiness for learning, acquisition of informationand internalization of concepts. They varied instructional methods and used a variety ofinstructional resources as Benjamin (2007) has suggested teachers need to do.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 17: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 229

Bean (1994) found that only 20% of his secondary preservice teachers could describeat the beginning of his course how they were going to foster the enjoyment of reading intheir instruction. Secondary content area literacy courses are valuable for the opportunityto explain to preservice teachers how to foster reading enjoyment while promoting content.For example, in a previous study (Daisey, 2009) with 124 secondary preservice teachers(in a content area literacy course that did not have a field experience), by the end of thesemester there were more who “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the statement, “Myfuture students will enjoy the reading in my classroom.” These preservice teachers believedthat they were more likely to have a classroom library than the teachers they rememberedin their subject area. They also predicted that they would be more likely to read aloud tofuture students than teachers they remembered in their subject area. However, the promiseof field experiences is to offer preservice teachers concrete evidence that it is possible forthem to provide enjoyable reading while promoting the curriculum. In the current study,preservice teachers were able not only to describe, but also demonstrated during their fieldexperience how they were going to foster the enjoyment of reading in their instruction.

Secondary preservice teachers were surprised that their presentations prompted theenthusiasm of the students to achieve literacy in their subject area. Given that motiva-tion has been cited as one of the greatest challenges of secondary teachers (Campbell &Kmiecik, 2004), it is important that preservice teachers know that teenagers are interestedin what reading has to offer them. Only one preservice teacher remarked about the lack oftime due to the need to “catch up” students with the goals of the class. This comment wasreminiscent of Daniels and Zemelman’s (2004) stressed teacher who complained about thecurriculum that needed to be covered.

The results of this study revealed that it is beneficial for secondary preservice teach-ers to have the opportunity to develop presentations that integrate reading into contentarea instruction based on benchmarks and focused on students’ motivation. An importantobjective of teacher education is that preservice teachers investigate new images of teach-ing and learning. This new thinking then may be incorporated into their existing schemasof educational practices. Course work that provides opportunities for preservice teachers toquestion critically their own beliefs and attitudes about teaching and the factors that shapedthese guiding thoughts is essential to this reflection.

Field experiences hold promise for teacher educators as well as preservice teachers.It has been educational to watch secondary preservice teachers’ attempts to put togethercoherent and engaging pre, during, and after reading lessons to present to middle and highschool students as well as to their cooperating teachers. I have realized the necessity ofstressing to preservice teachers that they make and discuss clearly the connections amongthe three activities for students. This is not possible to observe in the content area literacycourse, when due to time constraints, preservice teachers only have 15 minutes to presentone part of their lesson to their classmates.

Another important lesson that I have learned, is that it is one thing for preserivceteachers to prepare a pre, during, and after reading lesson. It is quite another to stand up infront of a class of teenagers and to have the confidence to reach within themselves for theenergy, enthusiasm, and good will toward students to pull it off. I have often wished thatI could bottle courage and hand it out at the classroom door. “Look in charge!” Overall, ithas been rewarding and thrilling to watch preservice teachers succeed often beyond theirexpectations (not always, not everyone) and tell me that this was the first time they felt thatthey had proof that they had chosen the right profession for them.

Given the large number of secondary preservice teachers, it is important for teachereducators to identify the course pedagogy that will lead to improved instructional use of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 18: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

230 P. Daisey

reading. This field experience, based on a constructivist approach, provided an avenuefor preservice teachers to construct knowledge from experience through reflection. In thisway, they may decide for themselves the value of integrating literacy into their content areainstruction. A limitation of this study is that it was based on the self-report of preserviceteachers. In the future, researchers need to survey teenage students and compare theirenthusiasm ratings with those of preservice teachers’ predictions. In this way, teacher edu-cators may explore the thoughts of teenagers who are positioned between the classroominstructional practices of their teacher and those that preservice teachers are encouragedto model. In addition, researchers need to survey the enthusiasm ratings of cooperatingteachers and compare their enthusiasm before and after preservice teachers’ presenta-tions. In this way, teacher educators may explore the cross influences of pedagogy thatis encouraged in content literacy courses and those that exist in secondary classrooms.

References

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Atwell, N. (2007). The reading zone: How to help kids become skilled, passionate, habitual, criticalreaders. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. PsychologicalReview, 84, 191–215.

Bean, T. W. (1994). A constructivist view of preservice teachers’ attitudes toward reading though casestudy analysis of autobiographies. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu, Jr. (Eds.), Multidimensional aspectsof literacy research, theory, and practice: 43rd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.370–379). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

Benjamin, A. (2007). But I’m not a reading teacher: Strategies for literacy instruction in contentareas. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Borasi, R., & Siegel, M. (1990). Reading to learn mathematics: New connections, new questions,new challenges. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(3), 9–16.

Campbell, M., & Kmiecik, M. (2004). The greatest literacy challenges facing contemporary highschool teachers: Implications for secondary teacher preparation. Reading Horizons, 45, 1–25.

Cardarelli, A. F. (1992). Teachers under cover: Promoting the personal reading of teachers. TheReading Teacher, 45(9), 664–668.

Carter, J. L., & Mayer, W. V. (1988). Reading beyond the textbook: Great books of biology.Bioscience, 38(7), 490–492.

Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. EducationalResearcher, 22(1), 5–12, 18.

Cole, A., & Knowles, J. (1993). Shattered images: Understanding expectations and realities of fieldexperiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(5/6), 457–471.

Colton, A., & Sparks-Langer, G. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the development ofteacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45–54.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dahbany, A., & McFadden, L. (2009). How can motivation and self-efficacy theory inform ado-lescent literacy teaching practices? In J. Lewis (Ed.), Essential questions in adolescent literacy:Teachers and researchers describe what works in classrooms (pp. 35–57). New York, NY: TheGuildford Press.

Daisey, P. (1993). Three ideas for promoting the values and uses of literacy at any age. Journal ofReading, 36(6), 436–440.

Daisey, P. (1994a). The use of trade books in secondary science and mathematics instruction: Arationale. School Science & Mathematics, 94(3), 130–137.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 19: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

Secondary Literacy Field Experiences 231

Daisey, P. (1994b). The use of trade books in secondary science and mathematics instruction:Classroom strategies. School Science and Mathematics, 94(4), 170–175.

Daisey, P. (1996). Promoting interest in plant biology with biographies of plant hunters. AmericanBiology Teacher, 58(7), 396–406.

Daisey, P. (1996/1997). Promoting literacy in secondary content area classrooms with biographyprojects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(4), 270–278.

Daisey, P. (1997). Promoting equity in secondary science and mathematics classrooms withbiography projects. School Science and Mathematics, 97(8), 413–418.

Daisey, P. (2009). The reading experiences and beliefs of secondary pre-service teachers. ReadingHorizons, 49(2), 167–190.

Daisey, P. (2010). Secondary preservice teachers remember their favorite reading experience:Insights and implications for content area instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,53(8), 678–687.

Daisey, P., & Jose-Kampfner, C. (2002). The power of story to expand possible selves for Latinamiddle school students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 578–587.

Daisey, P., & Shroyer, G. (1993). Perceptions and attitudes of content and content methods instructorstoward a required reading in the content area course. Journal of Reading, 36, 436–440.

Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (2004). Subjects matter: Every teacher’s guide to content-area reading.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: TheNew Press.

Easley, D. (2004). Sharing the gift of literacy: How to get your students hooked on books. Techniques,79(8), 36–39.

Fried, R. L. (2001). The passionate teacher: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Beacon.Gambrell, L. B. (2002). What research reveals about literacy motivation. In P. E. Linder, M. B.

Sampson, J. R. Dugan, & B. Brancato (Eds.), Celebrating the faces of literacy: The 23rd yearbookof the College Reading Association (pp. 32–42). Commerce, TX: College Reading Association.

Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Graves, D. (2001). The energy to teach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Greenleaf, C. L., Jimenez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading interven-

tions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 37(4), 484–496.

Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Reading motivation and engagement in middle and high school: Appraisal andintervention. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Engaging adolescents in reading (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Davis, M. H. (2004).Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.

Heath, S. B. (1980). The functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 30, 123–133.Herber, H. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Ivey, G. (2002). Supporting literacy in the later years. Middle Matters, 1(2), 6–7.Kenyon, R. W. (1989). Writing is problem solving. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to

learn mathematics and science (pp. 73–87). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Matthews, J. (1988). Escalante: The best teacher in America. New York, NY: Henry Holt.McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A., Bill, V., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J. (2006). Task, text &

talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 8–14.Merrill, M. D. (1992). Constructivism and instructional design. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen

(Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 99–114). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Mizelle, N. B. (1997). Enhancing young adolescents’ motivation for literacy learning. Middle SchoolJournal, 24(2), 5–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 20: The Promise of Secondary Content Area Literacy Field Experiences

232 P. Daisey

National Storytelling Association. (1994). Tales as tools: The power of story in the classroom.Jonesborough, TN: The National Storytelling Press.

Nourie, B., & Lenski, S. (1998). The (in)effectiveness of content area literacy instruction forsecondary teacher candidates. The Clearing House, 71(6), 372–378.

Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. TheReading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.

Ogle, D. (1989). Study techniques that ensure content area reading success. In D. Lapp, J. Flood,& N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading instruction: Instructional strategies (pp. 225–234).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (1990). Grand conversations. Richmond Hills, Ont.: Scholastic-TAB.Powell-Brown, A. (2003–2004). Can you be a teacher of literacy if you don’t love to read? Journal

of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(4), 284–288.Rasinski, T. (1992, November). Positive and negative influences on reading development. Paper

presented at the College Reading Association 36th Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO.Ratekin, N., Simpson, M. L., Alvermann, D. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1985). Why teachers resist content

reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 28(5), 432–437.Rieck, B. J. (1977). How content teachers telegraph messages against reading. Journal of Reading,

20(8), 646–648.Roe, B., Smith, S., & Ross, E. (2010). Student teaching and field experience handbook (7th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.Roe, M., & Vukelich, C. (1998). Literacy histories: Categories of influence. Reading Research &

Instruction, 37(4), 281–295.Roehler, L., & Duffy, G. (1989). The content area teacher’s instructional role: A cognitive medi-

ational view. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning:Instructional strategies (pp. 115–122). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ruddell, M. (2001). Teaching content reading and writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons.

Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Zittleman, K. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheatsgirls and boys in school and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Scribner.

Stone, R. (1996). The healing art of storytelling. New York, NY: Hyperion.Strommen, L. T., & Mates, B. F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and

teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(3), 188–200.Sumara, D. J. (1996). Private readings in public: Schooling the literary imagination. New York, NY:

Peter Lang.Taylor, D. (1996). The healing power of stories: Creating yourself through the stories of your life.

New York, NY: Doubleday.Thibodeau, G. M. (2008). A content literacy collaborative study group: High school teachers take

charge of their professional learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 54–64.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Zehr, M. (2010). Reading aloud to teens gains favor. Education Week, 29(16), 1, 12–13.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:31

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14